Adoption of international accounting standards and performance of emerging capital markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically the association between the adoption of international accounting standards (IAS/IFRS) and the performance of emerging capital markets. Design/methodology/approach Data related to 31 developing countries with capital markets were used. The authors performed univariate analyses (means comparison before and after the use of IAS/IFRS), as well as multivariate analyses (estimation of models of panel data), to test the hypothetical relations set up in the paper. Findings The results suggest that the performance of emerging capital markets is significantly and positively associated with IAS/IFRS use. They are consistent with several empirical investigations which highlighted the relevance of financial information under IAS/IFRS in emerging capital markets. Practical implications Several organizations and decision-makers including the IASB, governments, capital markets regulators and international investors should find the policy implications of this paper very meaningful. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the relationship between the use of IAS/IFRS and the performance of emerging capital markets based on a group of countries has not yet been explored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".